I use bugmenot.com to get around registering. You can even download a plug-in for Internet Exlorer or FireFox so all you have to do it right-click the registration box and it will fill in the log-ins for you!

I can't live without it.

_________________________I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.

I have to go with BigWill on this. That is a pretty damn good speech he gave. Let's hope that he can rally on Friday night and get that message out effectively.

If the media burried that speech, yet continued to cover Kerry's appearances, then that is definitely pathetic. There were plenty of good soundbytes in there worth quoting. However, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if there was no coverage.

Well I made it a point to check for coverage of that speech on the TV news outlets. Mostly it was not covered, and the best portions of it weren't covered at all. The "No WMDs in Iraq" news bulletin was more important apparently.

I've read the transcript-what makes this speech more newsworthy than any other campaign rhetoric. There's nothing new here-a couple pages of attacking Kerry and a couple more of Bush back patting. There's no new policy, no new detail, nothing new at all. On public radio here, the speech followed the lead story of no WMD's. I don't think it deserved any better coverage. If you want good GOP coverage tune in to Fox.

Wow! You are a partisan. Bush's speech was a detailed disection of Kerry's complicated position on Iraq and an affirmation of the administartion's position.
Why did it deserve coverage? Because Bush did not call him on it the night of the debate. The position the Kerry campaign cobbled together for him (an attempt to make sense of all his contradictory statements over the past few years - and gloss over the contradictions between the policy positions he currently purports to hold and his actual voting record for his entire career) was a surprise to us all, I think.
IMO, the statute of limitations on foreign policy discussions hasn't run out with the end of the last debate - despite efforts by the media and Kerry to turn the focus back to domestic issues and WMDs.

Regardless what my post portrayed I won't be voting for Kerry and I'm not trying to take a "partisan" positon. My point is if you follow the candidates, listen to the speeches, and have followed the issues (especiallly Iraq) closely, there was little of anything new in this speech.

Do you really think that Kerry's voting record over his tenure in the Senate will have much to do with how he would deal with Iraq if elected. He's going to go from Junior Senator of Massachusetts to Commander in Chief (during wartime). Would you have expected Bush to be "tough on terror" if you based your analyis on his National Guard service record or his tenure as Governor of Texas.

IMO the campaign allegations and/or promises by the 2 major candidates mean little-they both preach to the choir. This year the rhetoric is more important in that they need to appeal to the few truly undecided voters in the key battleground states. Minnesota is considered a battleground state, but in Bush's last appearance hear he was at the Xcel center which is a big arena. Unless you were invited you couldn't get near the place. Why does he only want to appear before his supporters? Because it's all orchestrated media events. Kerry I'm sure does the same thing.

I have a jounalistic background and find it annoying to hear all the allegations leveled at the supposed liberally and conservatively biased media. If I want a conservative bias I turn on Fox, liberal CBS, the only media outlet that comes close to nonpartisan is NPR or in my case Minnesota Public Radio and that tends to lean fairly strongly to the left.

Well, I re-read the speech and the last couple pages in this thread. I never said there was anything new in Bush's speech. I did say it was clear, concise and focussed. I did say that it was all the things we wished he had said the night of the debate but was unable or unwilling to say.

Here is the body of what I feel is a scathing and accurate indictment of Senator Kerry's position as stated during the Presidential debate:

"Last week in our debate, he once again came down firmly on every side of the Iraq war. He stated that Saddam Hussein was a threat and that America had no business removing that threat.

Senator Kerry said our soldiers and Marines are not fighting for a mistake but also called the liberation of Iraq a colossal error. He said we need to do more to train Iraqis, but he also said we shouldn't be spending so much money over there.

He said he wants to hold a summit meeting so he can invite other countries to join what he calls the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time.

(APPLAUSE)

He said terrorists are pouring across the Iraqi border but also said that fighting those terrorists is a diversion from the war on terror.

(LAUGHTER)

You hear all that and you can understand why somebody would make a face. My opponent's endless back and forth on Iraq is part of a larger misunderstanding. In the war on terror, Senator Kerry is proposing policies and doctrines that would weaken America and make the world more dangerous. Senator Kerry approaches the world with a September-the-10th mindset.

He declared in his convention speech that any attack will be met with a swift and certain response. That was the mindset of the 1990s, while al Qaeda was planning the attacks on America.

After September the 11th, our object in the war on terror is not to wait for the next attack and respond, but to prevent attacks by taking the fight to the enemy.

(APPLAUSE)

In our debate, Senator Kerry said that removing Saddam Hussein was a mistake because the threat was not imminent. The problem with this approach is obvious: If America waits until a threat is at our doorstep, it might be too late to save lives.

(APPLAUSE)

Tyrants and terrorists will not give us polite notice before they launch an attack on our country.

(APPLAUSE)

I refuse to stand by while dangers gather. In the world after September the 11th, the path to safety is the path of action. And I will continue to defend the people of the United States of America.

(APPLAUSE)

Thank you all.

My opponent has also announced the Kerry doctrine, declaring that Americans actions in the war on terror must pass a global test.

Under this test, America would not be able to act quickly against threats because we're sitting around waiting for our grade from other nations and other leaders.

I have a different view. America will always work with allies for security and peace, but the president's job is not to pass a global test. The president's job is to protect the American people. Thank you all.

When my opponent first ran for Congress, he argued that American troops should be deployed only at the directive of the United Nations.

Now, he's changed his mind.

(LAUGHTER)

No, he has, in all fairness. But it is a window into his thinking.

Over the years, Senator Kerry has looked for every excuse to constrain America's action in the world. These days he praises America's broad coalition in the Gulf War, but in 1991 he criticized those coalition members as, quote, shadow battlefield allies who barely carry a burden. Sounds familiar.

At that time he voted against the war. If that coalition didn't pass his global test clearly nothing will."

Bush will get another chance to deliver this message to the people, whether the liberal media wants them to hear it or not, during Friday nights debate.

BTW, I majored in political science and I teach American Government so I reckon I have been following these events about as closely as anyone. Our differences you cannot chalk up to ignorance, friend, only perspective.

BigWill, Nice post. Kerry, like many in the populace, questions Bush's actions in Iraq. That IMO is legit-Saddam posed no "imminent threat" to the US. We went in ill-prepared and lacking the troop numbers to get the job done. That seems like a "colossal error" as does flying to an carrier ship and proclaiming victory. Granted hind sight is 20/20. We're in this Iraq mess for the long haul, Kerry or Bush. The liberation of Iraq from the terror of Saddam is something that needed to be done, but has it done anything to improve our Homeland Security. bin Laden continues to operate in some measure. I don't know if we would have got him if we would have stayed out of Iraq (at least for a while) and continued our focus on al Quaida, but it couldn't have hurt our chances. Kerry supported going into Afghanistan how could he not? The rest of the world supported the U.S. going into Afghanistan post 9/11. Bush squandered that support and the good will of the world directed to the U.S. after 9/11 by his rush to Iraq.

I appreciate your perspective and the responses of the more conservative posts in this forum. I take a lot of this home to my ever loving wife who sits on our state's Democratic party's central committee. After dinner conversation is often pretty interesting thanks to the views presented here.